Many of these seniors are living on a finely balanced budget -- I know mine are -- and their small investment income has been all but wiped out, so I understand their fear. (I also understand there are ones with no financial worries - not applicable for my point).

I will do for my parents in any case; some won't do for theirs.

This is exactly why Obamacare must be ripped out, branch and root, before too many people come to government-mandated dependency. And why, going forward, perhaps during a rebuild, no government ANYWHERE may be permitted to "provide" ANYTHING that even looks like a "safety net". This is not charitable; it's a morally wrong two-fer, stealing from some to engender dependency in others, and no matter how good the original intentions are, there is always mission-creep.

Violating people's rights, and the Constitution, "just a little" is like the concept of being "just a little bit pregnant".

Exactly right.

Even though not strictly "conservative," I don't believe we can, or should, take social security away from people. Right wrong or indifferent, the government made a promise, and should keep it.

That said...the government should immediately STOP making promises, and then just let the existing ones expire. Then, problem solved.

Can't not, amp. It's not a matter of can or should; it simply cannot continue. Period. THERE.IS.NO.MONEY.

And let me just say here that I don't give a good g-damn WHAT the government promised. Those in the government who "promised" put me on the hook for making good the promises, and clearly had no authority to make them. WTF? I made no promises.

How about 1 trillion THIS year with no baseline increase for next year? That's what we need.

Then we should be supporting Ron Paul.At least he says it

Domestically, I'm right there with Ron Paul 75-80% of the time. Foreign policy? No way.

It's a tough situation, because foreign policy is moot when you're in an economically-induced state of anarchy. Economic success is irrelevant when your foreign policy is so bad your freedom is lost to a foreign enemy.

Many of these seniors are living on a finely balanced budget -- I know mine are -- and their small investment income has been all but wiped out, so I understand their fear. (I also understand there are ones with no financial worries - not applicable for my point).

I will do for my parents in any case; some won't do for theirs.

This is exactly why Obamacare must be ripped out, branch and root, before too many people come to government-mandated dependency. And why, going forward, perhaps during a rebuild, no government ANYWHERE may be permitted to "provide" ANYTHING that even looks like a "safety net". This is not charitable; it's a morally wrong two-fer, stealing from some to engender dependency in others, and no matter how good the original intentions are, there is always mission-creep.

Violating people's rights, and the Constitution, "just a little" is like the concept of being "just a little bit pregnant".

Exactly right.

Even though not strictly "conservative," I don't believe we can, or should, take social security away from people. Right wrong or indifferent, the government made a promise, and should keep it.

That said...the government should immediately STOP making promises, and then just let the existing ones expire. Then, problem solved.

Can't not, amp. It's not a matter of can or should; it simply cannot continue. Period. THERE.IS.NO.MONEY.

There IS money, we're just spending it before we get it. That's not quite the same thing, though I do understand the sentiment you are expressing.

We can service the existing debt, incur no more new debt, cut out all the bloat and entitlements and funding for things that don't work, strictly limit the budget to only things that are constitutionally allowed, still fund social security for all the people currently drawing, and then stop making those promises to people. We thereby ensure that social security is solvent, and then ceases to exist in a generation.

Even though not strictly "conservative," I don't believe we can, or should, take social security away from people. Right wrong or indifferent, the government made a promise, and should keep it. That said...the government should immediately STOP making promises, and then just let the existing ones expire. Then, problem solved.

It can't keep the current promises. The current promises will cost between 50-80 Trillion. There is no "Should" in math. The only why current promises can be kept is by printing the money. Even if we only keep half of our promises.. yeah its still insolvent. Hauser's Law ensures it.

Why I should continue to pay social security taxes when I would not get any benefit? Previous generations voted to give themselves their children and grandchildren's money. Right after the boomer generation was born it became clear there was a demographic tidal wave coming that would make the entitlement system insolvent. The boomer generation did nothing and STILL refuses to, and expects those in the younger generations to pay for their "promised" benefits in full, and fore-go their own benefits in the future and be less able to save for their own retirements because of the money stolen from them via taxation and via the inflation that MUST occur in order to pay the current promised benefits.

If you are willing to ignore this problem and steal from your own children, then you DESERVE to be cut off and forced to eat cat food. (or nothing and starve). But of course, that is not going to happen, is it? The current SS recipients had an entire lifetime to save, invest and prepare. I will be denied all of the above and I will work till the day I die, because of them. I feel no sympathy at all, and do not feel honor bound to keep "promises" that I never made, never agreed to, and which I am forced, at gunpoint, to participate in.

I remember how under the Bush tax cuts and ensuing growing economy the budget deficit (although not debt) evaporated by the hundreds of billions rather quickly. I realize we're talking about a different set of economic circumstances and a drastically different degree of insolvency, but the model is there.

Logged

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

There IS money, we're just spending it before we get it. That's not quite the same thing, though I do understand the sentiment you are expressing.

We can service the existing debt, incur no more new debt, cut out all the bloat and entitlements and funding for things that don't work, strictly limit the budget to only things that are constitutionally allowed, still fund social security for all the people currently drawing, and then stop making those promises to people. We thereby ensure that social security is solvent, and then ceases to exist in a generation.

It can't be done in a year, but four? Sure.

Tirllion)

There is NO WAY or us to pay the unfunded liabilities. To do so we would need 50-100 trillion in the bank right now gathering interest.

If you limit it to people already drawing, what about those who are 1 year away? 2 Years Away? 5? 10? They all paid in too. Why should people currently drawing get paid, and not those who planned on it, but never got a chance to submit the claim?

And Social Security is the lesser part of it. Are you suggesting no Medicare benefits for anyone not already getting them?

Promises or no. This does not ever get paid. Someone gets screwed. Its a Ponzi scheme and that is how Ponzi schemes work. As it is, we are headed for money printing so the politicians don't have to own up and outright default. So yeah, I will get my SS check for $1500 when I "retire" and for that I might be able to get a cup of coffee. Oh right, I can't afford to "retire" because my life savings were eaten up by inflation, and I won't bother drawing the check because I need my 4.3 Million dollar Salary at 7-11

I am not exaggerating. Its is that bad and that hopeless. Pull out excel spreadsheet and run the numbers yourself.

I remember how under the Bush tax cuts and ensuing growing economy the budget deficit (although not debt) evaporated by the hundreds of billions rather quickly. I realize we're talking about a different set of economic circumstances and a drastically different degree of insolvency, but the model is there.

The limits are established by Hauser's Law - you can have 20% of GDP as tax receipts. That is it. Your ability to spend is limited primarily by GDP. 20% of 14 Triillion is 2.8 Trillion. CBO expects 4% GDP growth, but we all know that isn't going to happen, but if it did, we would have a 20 Trillion GDP in 10 years. You get 4 Trillion in revenue then - that won't even pay for Current spending. The unfunded liabilities will grow at a much higher rate - 6-10%, add in the interest on our debt, and this is over in less than 15 years- and that is the pie in the sky happy,happy joy, joy scenario. What we really have had is under 2% (because the inflation makes it look like it is growing). If the economy does pick up, the fed will be forced to raise interest rates - and hence what we pay on our debt. Even if it only rises to 3%, that is enough to run us over by just the extra we have to spend on entitlements.

When you need 10s of Trillions and you can cut by 100s of billions, and you need to do it over decades, the math simply does not work.Believe me, I didn't cash out my 401K and spend my life savings on prepping for a "maybe" There is no way the Math works without dramatic changes in entitlements. The Ryan plan is a good place to start, but it falls short because it is based on the CBOs rosy expectations of 4% growth. Less than that, and you get less time.

Take the big unfunded liabilities out of the equation, and the rest is even too daunting for the average Pubbie.

Severe cutback of government across the board, strip the bureaucracy down to the bone, end all foreign aid and UN support, close whole departments and agencies, repeal 90% of the laws and reg's imposed over the past 100 year, Congress & everyone on a crash diet, end all welfare and pay down the debt and maybe...maybe there is hope.

No, I just want to know why no one else can see the hole and realize its too damn wide to jump. I played with those spreadsheets for days with Charles. THIS. DOESN'T. WORK. UNLESS. ENTITLEMENTS. ARE. NOT . JUST. CUT. BUT. ABOLISHED. PERIOD.As it is, we couldn't even get a deal that kept spending the same as last year.

No, I just want to know why no one else can see the hole and realize its too damn wide to jump. I played with those spreadsheets for days with Charles. THIS. DOESN'T. WORK. UNLESS. ENTITLEMENTS. ARE. NOT . JUST. CUT. BUT. ABOLISHED. PERIOD.As it is, we couldn't even get a deal that kept spending the same as last year.

See? This is what I'm saying -- it is pointless to keep talking. About almost anything.

Take the big unfunded liabilities out of the equation, and the rest is even too daunting for the average Pubbie.

Severe cutback of government across the board, strip the bureaucracy down to the bone, end all foreign aid and UN support, close whole departments and agencies, repeal 90% of the laws and reg's imposed over the past 100 year, Congress & everyone on a crash diet, end all welfare and pay down the debt and maybe...maybe there is hope.

Oh, and sustain this for at least 20 years.

If not, might as well jump in the hole too!

You know - if they were just to grab some Øbozo Bucks on their way down they could use them as parachutes!

Even though not strictly "conservative," I don't believe we can, or should, take social security away from people. Right wrong or indifferent, the government made a promise, and should keep it. That said...the government should immediately STOP making promises, and then just let the existing ones expire. Then, problem solved.

It can't keep the current promises. The current promises will cost between 50-80 Trillion. There is no "Should" in math. The only why current promises can be kept is by printing the money. Even if we only keep half of our promises.. yeah its still insolvent. Hauser's Law ensures it.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm only talking about Social Security.

Here's the actual hard, cold reality - even if everyone in the nation woke up tomorrow and were of one accord and decided that drastic change needed to occur, it still wouldn't happen in one year. It might not even happen in four, though that period of time is much more realistic. People need to time adjust their lives to account for the fact that the government upon which they were depending is no longer going to be propping them up. Maybe that means going back to school or learning a new trade or whatever, but it can't reasonably happen in one year. And it would probably require 4-8.

Businesses too need time to adjust. Time to adjust to what would invariably be a new health care landscape. Time to adjust to a new tax code. That's not going to happen in one year, either.

I know we all like to be super doomy gloomy around here, but giving up and saying it's impossible never accomplished anything.